Women bishops

On a flight back from Frankfurt on Sunday evening I picked up a copy of the Financial Times – not a paper I usually read. In it there was a short article about 'the art of leadership' by Peter Aspden.

He begins as follows:

For the last couple of weeks, most of the world has been debating a common theme: what combination of human qualities makes for an inspired leader?

He is referring to the re-election of Obama as POTUS. Basically, he argues that when looking to identify inspiring leaders we ignore the world of the arts. He then goes on, having explained himself, to say that “the current generation of arts leaders, in Britain at least, is outstanding,” and goes on to identify five qualities demanded by any high-profile leadership position:

1. Boldness

2. Suppleness

3. Democracy

4. A sense of mission

5. Imagination

Sitting in the General Synod for the debate on women bishops (not if we should have them – that was agreed a long time ago – but how we should make it happen, given that some disagree strongly), it is interesting to see how these qualities of leadership might be seen here.

Boldness is not the same as shouting or being dramatic. Boldness has to do with courage and determination – a willingness to take hard decisions and to keep focused on the real issues. There is plenty of boldness here in Synod, but the structures we live with can militate against achieving the end most people want to reach.

Suppleness is not a term easily applicable to the synodical structures and processes of the Church of England.

Democracy is good. It allows the General Synod to be constituted in a way that does not reflect the Church of England itself. It also means that bishops, clergy and lay people are all involved in decision making in and for the Church of England. Which means that it comes with the downsides of democracy, too: viz, that decisions have to be negotiated through the structures we have and not those we might like.

A sense of mission should not be a problem for the Church of England. But, it is all too easy for us to get distracted by stuff that takes our eye off the ball. The essential mission of the church is not to build up the church for the sake of itself, but for the sake of the world for which God has poured himself out is grace and love and mercy and generosity and so on. Anything else is self-indulgent and misses the point.

Imagination is something the church should have in bucket loads. The prophetic call has always been (see Isaiah for starters) to imagine a different world, a different way of being, and to live now accordingly. We should be able – whatever our preferences or prejudices – to imagine how we and the world might look if we were to live differently. Having done the imaginative thing, we might choose to vote according to our preferences or prejudices, but we cannot duck the obligation to imagine.

So, where does this leave us today as we debate women bishops? I shall vote for the imperfect legislation and trust that the Church of England might be bold, supple, imaginative and missionary by getting sufficient votes to move forward. We have heard all the arguments and I doubt if we shall hear anything new in today's debate. But, for what they are worth, these are my reflections at this point.

Like this:

Related

8 Responses to “Women bishops”

Dear Nick……………………you won’t remember me but I am a priest of 85 summers and I wrote to you on another subject, preaching. I write a weekly column in the Newcastle Evening Chronicle on Church Matters and we exchanged views. On the subject of Women Bishops, I can only repeat part of wot I wrote on the subject when Rowan Williams announced his retirement. This was to help those responsible for his successor………

So where will those responsible for the appointment look for this new General in the Church Militant? They could do well to consult a German handbook on military leadership. This identifies four basic types who may apply for the job.

First there are the lazy and unintelligent. These accomplish little, do little damage and are happy to obey orders. Then there are the hard working and unintelligent candidates. They need careful supervision and should be kept busy at all times.

The third group consists of the industrious and intelligent. These make ideal seconds in command but should not be put in charge of the entire regiment. They could run themselves and everyone else ragged.

The best leaders come from among the lazy and intelligent. These can delegate their work and get others to work for them. Also they are good at thinking up new ideas and inspiring others to carry them out.

It all reads rather like a script for TV’s Yes, Minister and in an odd sort of way, it is. As a prominent member of the General Synod once told me, “The whole thing is beyond prayer. This is politics.” I sincerely hope she was wrong but for the moment I’m putting my trust in the process of selection.

Let’s keep in touch, Nick……………….thine for ever. FRANCIS WOOD. (PS I recently had an article in Telegraph and Argus about one of your Churches – at Gomersal!)

I have read with interest your comments and thoughts on the question of women Bishops. May I ask you about your interpretation of 1 Timothy ch3 verses 1 – 7. Note, the words man, husband, his and he in respect to a Bishop in this passage. Verses 1,2,4,5&7 The woman is referred to as his wife in verse 2.
In case you are thinking of arguing that this was a different time and culture, that will not do. This is all about the Church of Jesus Christ, the body of Christ on earth. It is God’s kingdom, His alternative society. Our place in modern Britain is to be His ambassadors ( 2 Cor 5 v 20) representing Him as our King and obeying His word. First and foremost we are to go into all the world and preach the gospel and to be salt and light. Then, to make disciples of all who fully commit to Christ and integrate them into the church.
Having only male Bishops in the church may not be politically correct, but neither was our Lord Jesus Christ when He was on earth. And neither must the church be. We are to follow the teaching of Peter who personally knew Christ Jesus and was taught by Him, and said we ought to obey God rather than man.( Acts 5 v 29)
The reason, I suspect, for your consternation at the rejection of women Bishops is that you and many others in the C of E are worried about leadership in the future and there not being enough good men in or preparing for the ministry. That is your own fault because the C of E has not preached the gospel of Jesus Christ and seen men brought to real and vital faith in God through the regenerative power of Christ.
Women undoubtedly have an important place in the church. They had a special place in the life and ministry of our Lord when He was on earth. They had a special place in the early church as recorded in the book of the Acts of the Apostles and in the teachings of Paul and Peter. But Paul in particular (the greatest interpreter of the life and teaching of Jesus, besides Jesus Himself) gave a number of specific instructions to the church about its structure and who does what. The desirable office of a Bishop is reserved for a man. Bear in mind that Paul was not unaware of the importance of the church’s image outside in the world. In most of his letters about half of what he writes is about his concern that they do no harm to the testimony of Jesus Christ or His body on earth, His church.
However, that is only my opinion. What I would like to know is your interpretation of the scriptures mentioned in my first paragraph.

Robert, not only do you apparently know how I am likely to answer, you also demonstrate perfectly the problem with having a conversation with those who read the text off the page. There is little point in arguing with you. If others want to, they are welcome. I assume you prevent women speaking in the presence of a man and ensure they wear head-coverings? Do you still stone adulterers?

Dear Bishop, why do you think Robert Jones would prevent women speaking in the presence of a man (which is nowhere commanded in the bible), and why do you ask whether he would stone adulterers, since that was part of the law given to Israel, and not a commandment to the church of Jesus Christ? How would you answer his question about bishops being the husband of one wife, which seems a perfectly reasonable one? A bishop is required to be ‘able to teach’, so it’s rather shocking that you are not prepared to enter into discussion on the meaning and application of a bible passage relevant to your post. I don’t understand what you mean by ‘reading the text off the page’. What’s wrong with that, in your opinion?

Andrew, as you clearly know, I was referring to women being silent in church and not teaching where men are present. Your question itself illustrates the hermeneutical issue and the fallacy of those who speak of ‘the plain meaning of Scripture’ when it suits them (particularly when quoting Old Testament texts). I rarely enter into discussion about posts here and if you think responding to comments on a blog constitutes the teaching ministry of a bishop, then I am the one who is shocked.